Against women in combat

Let’s stipulate that women can engage in combat, that they are just as brave and patriotic as men and they they can kill our nation’s enemies when they need to.  The question is not can they, but should they?  Let me put forth two arguments and then put you onto several more from a column by Kathleen Parker.

(1)  Because women have the unique power to bear children, men have traditionally taken on the role of providing for them and protecting them.  (This is not simply a matter of oppressing them, as feminists claim, but a matter of historical and biological necessity, as even Darwinists would admit.) Having women in combat undermines the traditional role of women (which, of course, is what feminists want), but it also undermines the traditional role of men (which is weak enough, what with the eclipse of fatherhood in our society, and to finish it off completely may not be wise).

(2)  Male qualities generally described and often denigrated as “macho”–aggressiveness, a potential for violence, bravado, recklessness–are uniquely channeled in combat, where their purpose is fulfilled.  Women in combat will inevitably result in a feminization of the military, which risks thwarting its purpose and making it ineffective.

Now listen to Kathleen Parker:

The most salient point happens to be a feminist argument: Women, because of their inferior physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival. . . .

We’re potentially talking about 18-year-old girls, notwithstanding their “adult” designation under the law. (Parents know better.) At least 18-year-old males have the advantage of being gassed up on testosterone, the hormone that fuels not just sexual libido but, more to the point, aggression. To those suffering a sudden onset of the vapors, ignore hormones at your peril.

Now, hold the image of your 18-year-old daughter, neighbor, sister or girlfriend as you follow these facts, which somehow have been ignored in the advancement of a fallacy. The fallacy is that because men and women are equal under the law, they are equal in all endeavors and should have all access to the same opportunities. This is true except when the opportunity requires certain characteristics. Fact: Females have only half the upper-body strength as males — no small point in the field.

Further to the fallacy is the operating assumption that military service is just another job. The rules of civil society do not apply to the military, which is a top-down organization in which the rules are created to maximize efficiency in killing enemies. It is not just another job that can be managed with the human resources department’s Manual on Diversity and Sensitivity.

The argument that women’s performance on de facto front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved concerns about combat roles unwarranted is false logic. Just because women in forward support companies can return fire when necessary — or die — doesn’t necessarily mean they are equal to men in combat.

Unbeknown perhaps to many civilians, combat has a very specific meaning in the military. It has nothing to do with stepping on an IED or suffering the consequences of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means aggressively engaging and attacking the enemy with deliberate offensive action, with a high probability of face-to-face contact.

If the enemy is all around you — and you need every available person — that is one set of circumstances. To ask women to engage vicious men and risk capture under any other is beyond understanding. This is not a movie or a game. Every objective study has argued against women in direct combat for reasons that haven’t changed.

The threat to unit cohesion should require no elaboration. But let’s leave that obvious point to pedants and cross into enemy territory where somebody’s 18-year-old daughter has been captured. No one wants to imagine a son in these circumstances either, obviously, but women face special tortures. And, no, the rape of men has never held comparable appeal.

We can train our men to ignore the screams of their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create? And though some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy men.

via Parker: Military is putting women at unique risk – The Washington Post.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • tODD

    Much of this argument seems to hinge on whether we’re considering a volunteer army or a draft-based one. Obviously, we haven’t had the latter in quite some time, and I don’t really see any politician ever wanting to try that again, so for my purposes, it seems like this discussion really should focus on our volunteer military.

    Nearly every one of these arguments against women in the military is predicated on the average woman. Which seems less than useful. Because, in a volunteer military, you’re not going to have average women signing up. I’m pretty sure you don’t even have average men signing up. I’m willing to bet that the average military male is more physically fit than the average civilian male. So it kind of makes sense to assume a similar self-selection for women, too.

    I’m even willing to bet that the kind of woman who wants to engage in active combat isn’t as likely to be the kind who uses her “unique power to bear children” as the average woman.

    So, sure, if average women were forced by a draft into combat units, perhaps it would “inevitably result in a feminization of the military”. But when the only women who face combat are those who want to be there, then it’s quite likely that their masculine qualities, their testosterone levels, and so on, would not be appreciably different from the men they served with.

    I will restate here that I think it would be unwise for the military, given this change, to continue its policy of having different physical standards for women than men. Perhaps I’m naive for thinking that will change, but that policy does, at least, predate having women in active combat roles.

    To ask women to engage vicious men and risk capture under any other is beyond understanding.

    Begging the question.

    And, no, the rape of men has never held comparable appeal.

    The folks in Abu Ghraib and other prisons will be relieved to hear that.

    We can train our men to ignore the screams of their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create?

    So, wait, I want to create a society in which men ignore the screams of other men, instead?

    And though some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy men.

    So Parker is instead making an argument for putting American boys and men in the hands of enemy men? Or is that so much emotional manipulation?

  • Grace

    The argument that women are just as competent as men to serve in the military is just MACHO MAKE BELIEVE –

    Men are made to be the stronger, the protector – today we have women who aren’t willing to carry their babies, and either care for them, or give them up for adoption, but KILL THEM in the WOMB, so they don’t have to deal with a helpless little infant, unable to fend for themsleves, and the American people think this is STRENGTH?  ‏  ‏ It’s a weak excuse for being a woman – What woman considers herself strong, but can abort her own child?

    ENOUGH, this is double talk – we have a great many women who play MACHO MAMA, but don’t have the BOOT STRAPS to take care of the home front.

    I certainly don’t need women to throw on the duds of a male who has the ability to protect, but pretends she’s all zoned, sipped into fatigues to march into combat.

    It’s a sham!

  • Pete

    tODD @1 says, “I’m pretty sure you don’t even have average men signing up. I’m willing to bet that the average military male is more physically fit than the average civilian male. So it kind of makes sense to assume a similar self-selection for women, too.”

    So who do you want in the foxhole with you when the bullets are flying? The LA Lakers or the (Name-some-women’s-pro-basketball-team-that-I-can’t-even-come-up-with-a-name-for-since-it’s-such-a-vastly-inferior-product-not-that-I’m-even-a-big-basketball-fan-but-you-get-my-drift)?

    When will this country put a speed limit on stupidity?

  • Sam

    How ’bout we ask someone who has reason to know, and is actually effected by the idea? Don’t just read the following quote — go read the whole article, written by a woman who actually served in Iraq with the Marines. The link follows the quote:

    “We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.”

    https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/no-better-critics_698023.html?page=1

  • Sam

    An even better rundown of the problems that will follow, and the reasons to avoid the whole thing:

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/01/28/the-faqs-women-in-combat/

  • Kathy M.

    I have to disagree with tODD@1 regarding military recruits being better able than the “average” person to engage in combat, whether male or female. Recruits joining the military are the ones not going to college, not playing in college sports. While some recruits may be more physical, most are not super athletic; a lot of them are just looking for something to do, a direction in life.

    Thank-you, Sam@4, for posting the links to personal testimonies from actual Marines. I was a Marine officer, granted in the ’80s, but I relate to everything these ladies are talking about. I also worked with training Marine recruits, so I have some insight into that aspect.

    Has anybody mentioned or is it just taken for granted…the whole “women in combat” push has a lot to do with women wanting “opportunities” and “advancement?” I don’t know who these women are unless they are officers wanting a higher command/assignment, and they can’t get that command because they don’t have combat experience. Anybody have any insight there?

  • Paul Reed

    What is really irksome about this whole debate is why this is even a debate. I wish I could peer inside a liberal’s mind, but what is so horrible about a woman staying home and looking after her children? How could anyone actually see going off to war and dying be a better option for her? This comes in the abortion debate as well. It’s like they see pregnancy and child rearing as a fate worse than death.

  • Tom Hering

    Has anybody mentioned or is it just taken for granted…the whole “women in combat” push has a lot to do with women wanting “opportunities” and “advancement?” I don’t know who these women are unless they are officers wanting a higher command/assignment, and they can’t get that command because they don’t have combat experience. (Kathy M. @ 6)

    Sure, but if women are already dying and being wounded in war – and they are – then why shouldn’t we make the reality official, and give them a shot at the same opportunities and advancement that’s available to men? I’m actually sympathetic to the conservative argument here, but it’s a bit after-the-fact. The horse has been out of the barn for a while now.

  • Mary

    re: Tom Hering @8
    I spoke with two Marines (and an army vet) over the weekend. The Marines served in Iraq and Afghanistan. All opposed to women in combat, but they agree with your statement about women already being in combat and being injured and killed, but not getting the commendations for serving in combat. But instead of changing the whole structure allow for a special way to grant them the same commendations that their male counterparts get.
    The injured Marine stated that he had been on an MRAP for 42 hours straight with the only stops being to refuel. In full combat gear. Well over 120 degrees. No bathroom stops, all “done” on board. No shower for a month.
    Will we now require 18 year old females to register for Selective Service? The reasoning for not requiring them to do so is part of the ethos being discussed for women in combat.
    Will we require the women to use some sort of long term birth control to stop their periods so that they will be able to be in the above situations for days or weeks at a time?

  • Tom Hering

    Mary @ 9, the idea of having two gender-based classes of combat soldier, who are commended/rewarded in different ways, would cause more morale problems than it would solve. At least among the the women soldiers. But of course, a morale problem for women soldiers is a morale problem for everybody in a unit.

  • Jon

    Ms. Parker said, “It is not just another job that can be managed with the human resources department’s Manual on Diversity and Sensitivity.”

    Boy, they sure are trying to, though. This ain’t your granddad’s military no more.

  • Kathy M.

    I don’t think that the fact that women are now in some dangerous combat situations means that we should just open the door and send women to most or all combat positions. I don’t know what kind of credit the women are “not getting” for being in these dangerous situations. Are men in these same units getting more credit because they’re men? Having been in the military and knowing how “things work,” I can envision some women pushing the combat issue, to the career benefit of a few women, but to the detriment of many.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    As to the enemy raping our female soldiers. Yes that is a concern. The fact is when it comes to combat units, well we should be afraid of our own men raping them. The degree to which sexual assault is a problem in our military forces is staggering. And yet we just ignore this.
    And actually tODD, you would be surprised at what selection is like in the military. The whole thing about Military Intelligence is not as much a joke as you would like to think. The women that sign up for the military, they aren’t necessarily stronger or have any other characteristic that would make them more suitable for combat. They are poor. They are girls who can’t go to college. They are girls trying to get out of bad situations at home, and often end up in worse situations in the military. They are eighteen year old girls hoodwinked by a recruiter into joining. They join and then everything is decided by a quota. Sure you take an asvab test before you get in. Then in my case they paid attention I went in to be an electrician, then the school started with a lesson that began “This is a screwdriver” yes, and there were kids in my class didn’t know what a screwdriver was, or how to use a hammer.
    I have parents ask me from time to time if they should have their daughter enlist, I ask them why not just sell them to a pimp? The military in general is not a place for women. I don’t think we should be complicating the matter by sending women into combat units. This is insanity.

  • Tom Hering

    Bror @ 13, you’re perilously close to saying the women who now serve in the military are only there because they’re are all losers who’ve been scammed. What happened to the defending the idea (that I’ve seen defended here many times) that our soldiers are our best and brightest?

  • helen

    Tom @ 14
    My experience is limited but the couple I’ve seen were tramps (and I usually couldn’t tell about that!)
    [One had been to the first Gulf War; that one was over so quickly that the hardest thing she did was dig herself a hole in the sand. The other (after a lot of big talk) washed out of basic training. They were both interested because that was where the men were plentiful and the competition scarce.]

  • Mary

    Bror # 13
    I realize you are making some comments based on your personal observances, so I thought I would give you mine. My daughter in law served in the Army because of family tradition and love of country. She is now attending college on the GI bill and is pulling down a 4.0 while also homeschooling her children. A friend’s daughter was killed in Iraq, she was a member of the 101st Military Attachment and has had a Training Support Center, and a Cryptology Center “Pinson Hall” named in her honor. The several other women I know who have or are serving are officers and entered the military after graduating from college.

  • sg

    “when the only women who face combat are those who want to be there, then it’s quite likely that their masculine qualities, their testosterone levels, and so on, would not be appreciably different from the men they served with.”

    Okay, you were making logical sense till this point. Women can’t have testosterone levels similar to men’s.
    Can not happen.

  • MarkB

    I was in the Navy in the late 60′s and early 70′s as a nuclear operator on a submarine. The particular one was the Robert E. Lee. The Lee had a smaller berthing area in the torpedo room that was isolated from the rest of the ship and at one time the Navy was seriously considering having women serve on these subs since they had the separate berthing area. This was shut down because of the Navy wives. They assumed that if there were women onboard the sub which went out to sea under water for about 3 months at a time that there would be a lot of hanky panky between their husbands and the women on the sub. I believe this was something that would have happened because when you isolate and mix young adults in a contained environment with all the hormones coursing through their bodies sex will happen. This as the Navy wives assumed would destroy many marriages.

    I believe that putting women on the front lines would be similar and result in many divorces for military families. Or it would end up drastically changing the meaning of marriage for our military personel. And then the question is, is that what we really want to do?

  • sg

    @ 16

    Female military service ≠ Combat assignment.

    Yes, women in the military die. We are very sorry for your loss, and grateful for their service.

    Women also die violent deaths in Chicago. This may sound flippant, but I cite it just to make the point that there are neighborhoods in which one is more likely to be shot than when serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sad but true.

  • sg

    Okay, I saw a hilariously irreverent comment elsewhere, I have to share in a paraphrase:

    WTF, I thought the entire point of war was to save your women, kids and territory.

    It is so stunningly obvious, yet clearly we have missed the point. If we don’t value our kids more than anyone else and we are giving the place away to illegally entering foreigners anyway, then we might as well let them shoot our women, too. We seem to believe we have no identity, no territory, no posterity. Nothing really matters.

  • sg


    (1) Because women have the unique power to bear children, men have traditionally taken on the role of providing for them and protecting them. “

    Okay, but our women have the unique ability to have our children. Foreigners got kids and women, too, but they don’t have our kids and our women. That is the point.

  • sg

    Bror @ 13, you’re perilously close to saying the women who now serve in the military are only there because they’re are all losers who’ve been scammed. What happened to the defending the idea (that I’ve seen defended here many times) that our soldiers are our best and brightest?

    Soldiers aren’t our best and brightest, but they are above our average, by definition. Military entrance tests make sure that all qualifying scores are at least average, and only a tiny fraction are allowed waivers. This is why our DoD schools are so high performing. 95% of the students’ parents are above average. In the general population only 50% are above average by definition. Anyway, there are a lot of people who are above average but nowhere near the best. The military capitalizes on the hardships faced by those who are smart enough to be in college but not rich enough to be in college without taking the high risk opportunity cost of living for four years on loans made on unfavorable terms. So, yeah, these are great folks, but no, generally they are not at the top, just well above the average in ability but not opportunity.

  • fjsteve

    What about taking the politics out of it and leaving the decision up to commanders on the ground who, under their command, is most capable of filling which roles?

  • Mary

    #18 sg
    I should have added to my above post at #16 that my daughter in law is opposed to women in combat, and has been on local radio interviews to give her viewpoint on the announcement by Panetta.
    Some of her quotes:
    The fact is that there are women who CAN handle the stress and rigors of combat. And just as true is the opposite: there are men who CANNOT. But the real issue is this: do we want a military that is first and foremost a formidable fighting force or one that is first and foremost dedicated to enforced equality? We can’t have both.
    The military is strong in part because it is the most discriminatory workplace in the nation. You can be kept out, fired, or barred from promotion simply for being too tall, too short, too thin, too fat, too sick, too injured,too stupid, and the list goes on. Every move it has made in the direction of political correctness has been a move away from strength.
    Every time a job is opened to women in the military, instead of demanding that the women meet the same standards set by the men, they create a new (nearly always lower) standard for the women. As more and more women qualify for jobs based on these lowered standards, the efficiency and overall performance of the unit as a whole is decreased. To add close combat jobs to that list is asking for an Army that cannot help but be weakened as the standards for such jobs are lowered in the name of “equality.”
    and finally this
    To most, my position on this issue may seem sexist. And maybe it is. But the necessarily lowered standards that would allow women into combat jobs remind me a bit of General Shinseki’s uniform changes back in 2001. He ordered that starting on June 14, 2001, all soldiers would wear the black beret with their duty uniforms instead of the standard PC (patrol cap). Sure the black beret looked a little bit dressier, but served absolutely no practical purpose. Those of us who had to wear it constantly complained that it didn’t block sun, rain, or wind from the face. It didn’t stay on very well, especially if it was windy. And it was harder to keep in presentable condition once it had been exposed to the elements. But the people who truly deserved to complain were the ones who had been through hell in Army Ranger training to earn that same black beret.

    Just as the accomplishments of the Rangers who had sacrificed blood, sweat and tears to earn those black berets were marginalized by an Army of unqualified soldiers being handed them simply for existing, the accomplishments of the men who meet the more strenuous “male” requirements for any job in the military are minimized and mocked by the women who can do in some cases half the work and then demand not only the same job, but equal pay and an equal chance at promotion and recognition.

  • Abby

    “For instance, last year the Marine Corps admitted two women to take part in the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course, a course in which about 25 percent of men don’t make the cut or voluntarily drop out. One of the woman volunteers washed out on the first day because she was unable to complete the program’s introductory combat endurance test. The other woman was dropped from training a few days later due to unspecified medical reasons. The Marine Corps wants to test at least 90 more women in the course before making any decision about women serving in infantry roles, but so far those two women are the only one’s to volunteer for the training.” http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/01/28/the-faqs-women-in-combat/

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    MarkB makes a good comment about divorces and family trouble due to “nature taking its course” in a submarine. Now let’s admit the obvious; with a sexual assault rate and pregnancy rate far higher than in the civilian population, along with various nasty terms for “GI Jane”, it’s pretty clear that the gender integration of the armed forces is resulting in “nature taking its course.” Retired officers I’ve talked with speak clearly of spending a lot of time dealing with the fallout of this. It’s already a clear detriment to military preparedness.

    Now, let’s imagine what happens when “GI Jane” joins an infantry platoon (we’ll call it “F Troop”) and some, but not all, of the men are getting that action–and of those who are getting that action, some want a degree of exclusivity and others are content to break that exclusivity. What happens to unit cohesion and preparedness?

  • Joe

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I think this is a terrible idea but if we are going to do it we have to seriously consider segregated units. I have been in co-ed units. It simply doesn’t work. 18-25 year-olds are not interested in decorum and respect. They are interested in relieving the high stress of the job by drinking and having sex. This is a recipe for complete disaster. The chain of command is quickly replaced by jealousy and power plays. I’ve seen women use sex to get better job assignments and I’ve seen officers withhold promotions for men who were having better luck with the females than the officer. I’ve had conversations in which fellow soldiers discussed who would be shot in the back if we were sent to a war zone. I don’t claim that an all male army would be perfect but in the time I put in, 90% of the moral/chain of command problems were the result of women and men in the same unit.

    Are those in our military our “best and brightest.” The answer is no, not on the whole. There are a lot of bright up standing folks in our military (a count a couple of close friends among them) but they are not the majority. To confirm this just go to your local high school and find out who is signing up and who is not. Then, look into those of higher class rank who have signed up and ask them if they are in it for a career or if they are just putting in 4 years to get a free college education. (This is the vast majority of our current junior officer corp).

    Also, the idea that serving in the military is a right for anyone, male or female, misunderstands the role of the military in a free society. The military is not free so that it can be effective enough to ensure that the society is free. Thinking of our military as a place where the soldiers are entitled to the benefits of the free society they signed up to protect is the beginning of the end.

  • fjsteve

    bubba,

    I think what some of the other people here are saying is that if G.I. Jane has what it takes to make it to an infantry platoon, and has put in the work to make it happen, she’s less likely to be the type to toss in away over a romantic relationship. She’s also less likely to be the type to be easily subdued by her fellow infantrymen.

    On the other hand, I don’t know how realistic this is, given that a former commander of CENTCOM, and a man, was apparently the type to throw it all away over a romantic relationship.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I would caution against thinking that every girl that signs up for service is the same as your daughter.
    I do have a lot of respect for our military and what they do. But there are realities here that cannot be ignored. Or at least should not be ignored. And I don’t really care what I come “perilously close” to saying. There are exceptions to what I have said above, but they are exceptions.

  • Tammy

    Having served as a female in the Navy during the Gulf War on shore duty I dealt with an enormous amount of sexual harassment. Note: I was on SHORE DUTY (on American soil). I was not in a far off territory suffering the elements or in a position where I was lonely. Most all women I knew suffered from being vulnerable to young men attempting corner vulnerable women. If fact, the USS Dixon was one of the first ships to sail out to sea with women on board. The trip was cut short due to all the women who had gotten pregnant.

    If women were equal, then why is it that no woman can make the SEAL Team? If women were equal, then let us have an all women’s SEAL Team and see who is better. The fact that women are weaker by default, weakens our military’s strength. This is a matter that involves no intelligence. It is what it is.

  • Larry

    Well, granted this blog is but a teeny tiny statistical slice of people but from it & the opinions posted to date: those mostly against it have one thing in common, experience in the military, particularly actual combat experience, and especially the women themselves who I think can speak especially to the issue since it involves them (as oppose to men theorizing about them and tell them “what’s best”). And those for it or at least leaning that way or at least arguing against those arguing against it have one thing (mostly) in common, little to no military, especially actual combat, experience and no women. This is pretty much what I’ve heard/experienced personally on such discussions.

  • DonS

    Larry @ 31: Agreed. And that seems to be the case outside of this blog as well.

    I’ll say it again — the notion that military service is a right is at the root of this decision. And it is a very wrongheaded notion. The military exists to defend our nation and our nations interests. It does not exist to provide people with the opportunity for a military career.

  • justiceday

    Do people realize that the military is already not protecting women that serve. One in three women is sexually assaulted in the military, not to mention women who are assaulted by the military that don’t serve.
    Instead of fixing the problem of rape they are now allowing women to get abortions in the military that are raped.
    Now they want to put us in combat? So we can kill and be assaulted more?
    This is a PR move to take the focus off the fact that sexual assault in the military is in the media.
    Rape in the military needs to be what is being discussed and eliminated. Rapist and the commands that protect them need held accountable.
    http://www.theusmarinesrape.com/MarshmallowHead.html

  • wondering

    Do soldiers fight with their penises?

    If they don’t, then why is this an issue?

  • Tammy

    @Justiceday … read my post … I agree.

    @Wondering … You are not making sense.
    1. The vocation of a Father is to not put their daughters in harms way.
    2. Women cannot physically lift men to safety.
    3. Women are severely sexually harrassed as I was and most all the women I know while serving.
    4. Men have and will intimidate women in the military making their jobs harder and morale worse.
    5. The USS Dixon was sent home early due to all the pregnancies on board.
    6. No woman can fight as well as a man. No woman can make the SEAL TEAM (Must less most star male athletes from High School).
    7. Most women are compromised each moth with their menstral period making it hard for them to stay in combat for prolonged periods of time without cleaning themselves or dealing with the cramps which makes it difficult to concentrate on killing your enemy.

    The list goes on and on.

  • J Cilliers

    Similar arguments can be used to oppose women in crime fighting in the police and security companies.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X